NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 11 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-10226
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:15-cr-01374-SPL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MITCHELL CLAWSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Steven P. Logan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 8, 2017**
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Mitchell Clawson appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
his guilty-plea conviction and 188-month sentence for abusive sexual contact, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 2244(a)(5), and 2246(3). Pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Clawson’s counsel has filed a brief stating that
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of
record. We have provided Clawson the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental
brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Clawson waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our
independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80
(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United
States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss
the appeal. See id. at 988.
We remand the case to the district court with instructions to amend the
judgment to add “CIR” to the description of the offense and delete the language
“or with a vulnerable population (i.e. elderly or physically or mentally
handicapped),” and “and victim(s) family” from special condition numbers seven
and ten, respectively. See United States v. Hernandez, 795 F.3d 1159, 1169 (9th
Cir. 2015) (remanding for the district court to make the written judgment
consistent with the unambiguous oral pronouncement of sentence).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
DISMISSED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.
2 16-10226